Cases

Ellington, Presiding Judge. In March 2011, the appellants 1 sued the DeKalb County School District ("the District") and the DeKalb County Board of Education ("the Board") 2 for, inter alia, breaching an agreement to provide two years' advance notice prior to suspending

GOLD, J. The court has before it the following motions filed by the defendant: (1) a motion to correct an illegal sentence, dated October 8, 2010, later amended by a similarly entitled motion dated April 29, 2011; (2) two motions to open and set aside the judgment, dated respectively December 16, 2010, and June 3, 2011; and (3) a pleading entitled “Bill in Equity,” dated May 20, 2011.1 Each of these

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Hillcrest Pacific Corp. v. Yamamura, 727 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 650 December 13, 2023 479 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CONOR AUSTIN GOLD, Defendant-Appellant. Benton County Circuit Court 20CR22569; A177144 Locke A. Williams, Judge. Argued and submitted August 30, 2023. Marc D. Brown, Deputy Defe

[Cite as Gold v. Bertram, 2023-Ohio-4567.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WASHINGTON COUNTY ARI GOLD, : : Relator-Appellant, : Case No. 22CA9 : v. : : DECISION AND JUDGMENT PAUL BERTRAM, III, ET AL., : ENTRY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., Chief Judge. On March 10, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the instant class action on behalf of themselves and other putative class members (collectively “Plaintiffs” or “Class Members”) against Carter Brothers Security Services, LLC (“Carter Brothers”), AT & T Digital Life, Inc. (“AT & T”), Pacific Bell Telephone Company dba AT & T Datac

506 F.Supp.2d 792 (2007) B.H., a minor child, by and through her natural parents and guardians, Billie and Jackie Holder, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOLD FIELDS MINING CORPORATION, et al., Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs, v. United States of America, et al., Third-Party Defendants. No. 04-CV-0564-CVE-PJC. United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma. February 1, 2007.

No. 650 December 13, 2023 479 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CONOR AUSTIN GOLD, Defendant-Appellant. Benton County Circuit Court 20CR22569; A177144 Locke A. Williams, Judge. Argued and submitted August 30, 2023. Marc D. Brown, Deputy Defe

ORDER CLEARY, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter came before the Court for hearing on September 26, 2005, on Plaintiffs’ Motions [Dkt. ## 265 & 269] to Compel Production of Documents Based on Testamentary (sic) Use of Work Product.1 At the hear*654ing, Plaintiffs for the first time presented the

[Cite as State v. Carter, 2025-Ohio-2545.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-24-063 Appellee Trial Court No. 2023 CR 0086 v. Raymond F. Carter DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant

908 F.Supp. 898 (1995) Ellen MORELAND, Plaintiff, v. GOLD KIST, INC., et al., Defendants. No. CV 95-PT-2587-S. United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division. December 20, 1995. James M. Patton, Rodden Hayes & Carter, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for plaintiff. Mac B. Greaves, Sadler Sullivan Sharp Fishburne & Van Tassel, P.C., Birmingham, AL,

This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter 2025 UT 13 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH DOUGLAS STEWART CARTER, Appellee, v. STATE OF UTAH, Appellant. No. 20221116

[Cite as State v. Carter, 2025-Ohio-1217.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 5-24-35 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RAYMOND F. CARTER, OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court

McKinney, J. delivered the opinion of the court. In respect to the true application and extent of the principle upon which this case was placed, by the Circuit Judge, in his instructions to the jury, viz, the principle of compensation for nuisance, as it is denominated, in .some of the cases, there is, in the books, at least an apparent disagreement. The case of the King vs. War

[Cite as State v. Carter, 2024-Ohio-5031.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-23-1130 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202201827 v. Jadiah Carter DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant

McKinney, J. delivered the opinion of the court. In respect to the true application and extent of the principle upon which this case was placed, by the Circuit Judge, in his instructions to the jury, viz, the principle of compensation for nuisance, as it is denominated, in .some of the cases, there is, in the books, at least an apparent disagreement. The case of the King vs. War

McKinney, J. delivered the opinion of the court. In respect to the true application and extent of the principle upon which this case was placed, by the Circuit Judge, in his instructions to the jury, viz, the principle of compensation for nuisance, as it is denominated, in .some of the cases, there is, in the books, at least an apparent disagreement. The case of the King vs. War

FILED AUGUST 5, 2025 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE STEPHEN CARTER and CHRISTY ) No. 40485

#30048-a-JMK 2023 S.D. 67 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA **** STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MATTHEW ALLAN CARTER, Defendant and Appellant. **** APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT